Week 6 DVOA Ratings
by Aaron Schatz
Are you ready for some upheaval? The New York Giants take their huge win over San Francisco (covered in this week's Any Given Sunday) and ride it up the DVOA charts all the way from number eight to number one. The Giants look even more like the best team in the league if you consider that their Week 1 loss to Dallas now looks like an extreme outlier. The Giants had a -40.9% DVOA for that game, but have over 20% DVOA in every one of their games since (including their narrow Week 4 loss to Philadelphia).
The Giants weren't the only team to see their placement in DVOA change dramatically this week. A dozen different teams moved up or down by at least four places in this week's DVOA ratings. The Colts and Chargers stand out as the biggest drops, while the Jets, Bucs, and Giants had the biggest gains.
This season continues to be defined by two trends: first, a ridiculous number of late comebacks and otherwise close games mean that advanced stats like DVOA rank the teams in an order very different from simple wins and losses; and second, that the NFC is far, far superior to the AFC.
Six of the top seven teams right now have at least two losses. Three of them are just 3-3. This is the first time in DVOA history that four different two-loss (or three-loss) teams are in the top five after Week 6. However, it's pretty clear that this close-game thing has been increasing in importance over the past few years. From 1991 through 2004, an average of 1.2 teams per year were in the top five after Week 6 despite multiple losses. There have been at least two of these teams in the top five after Week 6 in every season since 2006. Last week, the Packers were the second-best 2-3 team in DVOA history, and this week they are the second-best 3-3 team in DVOA history (once again behind the 2005 Chargers). The Broncos are the fourth-best 3-3 team in DVOA history, behind the 2005 Chargers, the Packers, and the 2008 Eagles.
The flip side of these 4-2 and 3-3 teams at the top of our ratings is that the teams with the best win-loss records are ranked eight, nine, and ten. Eighth-ranked Atlanta has the third-lowest DVOA for any 6-0 team in the DVOA era, behind only the 2000 Vikings (1.2%) and the 2006 Colts (9.2%). I suppose there's worse company to keep; the Vikings made it to the NFC Championship game that year, and the Colts won the Super Bowl after Bob Sanders got healthy and their defense suddenly woke up in the playoffs. (Vince Verhei explains why the Falcons aren't as good as their record in this ESPN Insider article.)
To be honest, the fact that 4-2 and 3-3 teams rank so high in DVOA makes me feel more confident about the ratings, not less. If I want to figure out who can make a playoff run in a year with so many close games, I would rather put my faith in teams that have streaks of dominant play -- albeit inconsistent streaks -- rather than teams riding a couple of lucky bounces and three-point victories to the top of the standings. And despite the fact that the win-loss records look all mixed up on the DVOA ratings table, it's interesting to note that only one team is over 0% with a losing record (2-3 Tampa Bay at 0.6%) and only one team is under 0% with a winning record (4-2 Arizona at -6.6%).
Of course, not all close games and late comebacks are created equal. Of the four games from Week 6 with big fourth-quarter comebacks, one particularly stands out. From the mention above that the Chargers dropped significantly in DVOA this week, you can probably guess which game that is. These are all ratings for the whole games, not just the fourth quarters, with the opponent adjustments removed:
| Big Comebacks! VOA for Four Week 6 Games | ||||
| TEAM | OFF VOA | DEF VOA | ST VOA | TOT VOA |
| TEN | -12.1% | -0.8% | 0.4% | -10.8% |
| PIT | 7.9% | -14.3% | -17.2% | 5.0% |
| SEA | 19.6% | -5.6% | -11.4% | 13.8% |
| NE | -1.5% | 14.1% | 8.1% | -7.5% |
| DET | 4.3% | -7.8% | 2.2% | 14.3% |
| PHI | -13.8% | 7.1% | 6.1% | -14.8% |
| DEN | 37.4% | -43.9% | -6.5% | 74.7% |
| SD | -45.0% | 31.1% | 6.2% | -69.8% |
Over at Grantland, our old buddy Bill Barnwell does a good job of pointing out that the Broncos weren't really playing that badly when they were down 24-0 at halftime of last night's game. Yes, they had struggles in the first half, but not struggles that would be commensurate with a 24-0 deficit. But the second half was a stomping that requires a thesaurus to describe properly. Should we go with bewildering? Overwhelming? Gargantuan? Monumental? How about "elephantine?"
| TEAM | OFF VOA | DEF VOA | ST VOA | TOT VOA |
| First Half | ||||
| DEN | -33.8% | 14.4% | -6.5% | -54.7% |
| SD | 7.1% | -39.9% | 7.6% | 54.5% |
| Second Half | ||||
| DEN | 88.1% | -99.4% | 0.0% | 187.5% |
| SD | -100.0% | 86.4% | -1.3% | -187.7% |
Moving on to the other big trend of 2012, power has gradually been sliding from the AFC over to the NFC over the last couple of seasons, but I've got to imagine this is about as extreme as it can get. Not only are the top four teams by DVOA all NFC teams, but so are 10 of the top 15 teams. Even worse, the bottom eight teams in the league are all AFC teams. The teams ranked 29-31 right now are all from the same division, the AFC South.
Of course, everything in the NFL is cyclical. A few years ago, the AFC was perhaps as dominant as the NFC is right now. Check out the DVOA ratings from 2004, when the AFC had the top five teams and the NFC had only two teams in the top dozen.
The massive conference imbalance has a major effect on the Football Outsiders playoff odds. Despite a wrenching loss and wins for all three of their division rivals, the Patriots' playoff odds only dropped by five percentage points this week. Even if they lose their division -- which now happens in one-third of all our simulations -- which two teams are going to get past them for a wild card spot? Houston has it even better than the Patriots do. The Texans got clobbered by Green Bay, dropped from second to ninth in DVOA, and still saw their playoff odds drop by less than one percent! It's just really hard to imagine that a loss to an NFC opponent is going to kill an AFC team's playoff chances this year.
[ad placeholder 3]
If DVOA is any guide, there are four teams clearly favored to win the four AFC divisions: Denver, Houston, New England, and Baltimore. DVOA doesn't know about Baltimore's injuries, of course, but Pittsburgh isn't exactly a prime example of health right now either. Because the rest of the conference is so far behind those four teams -- the only other AFC team with a positive DVOA is Miami -- those four AFC teams each have more than a 20 percent chance of making the Super Bowl. The NFC has much more competition, so Atlanta is currently the only team listed with more than a 20 percent chance to make the Super Bowl (because, despite their lower DVOA, they are currently in pole position for the number-one seed).
* * * * *
All stats pages should now be updated (or, at least, will be in the next few minutes) except for snap counts, which should be updated to include Week 6 sometime late this afternoon. FO Premium stats will be updated later this evening.
* * * * *
These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through six weeks of 2012, measured by our proprietary Defense-adjusted Value Over Average (DVOA) system that breaks down every single play and compares a team's performance to the league average based on situation in order to determine value over average. (Explained further here.)
[ad placeholder 4]
OFFENSE and DEFENSE DVOA are adjusted to consider all fumbles, kept or lost, as equal value. SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver) and week of season.
Because it is early in the season, opponent strength is at only 60 percent; it will increase 10 percent every week through Week 10. As always, positive numbers represent more points so DEFENSE is better when it is NEGATIVE.
DAVE is a formula which combines our preseason projection with current DVOA to get a more accurate forecast of how a team will play the rest of the season. Right now, the preseason projection makes up 19 percent of DAVE (27 percent for teams with only five games played).
To save people some time, please use the following format for all complaints:
<team> is clearly ranked <too high/too low> because <reason unrelated to DVOA>. <subjective ranking system> is way better than this. <unrelated team-supporting or -denigrating comment, preferably with poor spelling and/or chat-acceptable spelling>
| TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
LAST WEEK |
TOTAL DAVE |
RANK | W-L | OFFENSE DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
S.T. DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 1 | NYG | 34.6% | 8 | 30.1% | 2 | 4-2 | 30.1% | 1 | -1.8% | 15 | 2.7% | 13 |
| 2 | GB | 34.1% | 6 | 31.9% | 1 | 3-3 | 25.7% | 3 | -8.1% | 11 | 0.2% | 18 |
| 3 | CHI | 33.6% | 3 | 28.9% | 3 | 4-1 | -7.7% | 23 | -34.1% | 1 | 7.1% | 3 |
| 4 | SF | 31.8% | 1 | 25.4% | 5 | 4-2 | 18.3% | 4 | -18.3% | 3 | -4.8% | 25 |
| 5 | DEN | 27.6% | 9 | 23.5% | 6 | 3-3 | 16.1% | 6 | -11.8% | 8 | -0.3% | 19 |
| 6 | NE | 25.1% | 5 | 27.5% | 4 | 3-3 | 28.4% | 2 | 3.8% | 18 | 0.5% | 16 |
| 7 | SEA | 23.5% | 10 | 16.2% | 8 | 4-2 | -7.1% | 22 | -25.0% | 2 | 5.6% | 7 |
| 8 | ATL | 18.7% | 4 | 19.1% | 7 | 6-0 | 7.0% | 10 | -7.3% | 12 | 4.4% | 10 |
| 9 | HOU | 18.2% | 2 | 15.2% | 9 | 5-1 | 10.5% | 9 | -16.7% | 4 | -9.1% | 30 |
| 10 | BAL | 15.9% | 11 | 14.7% | 10 | 5-1 | 12.3% | 8 | 2.8% | 17 | 6.4% | 5 |
| 11 | MIN | 13.9% | 7 | 8.0% | 11 | 4-2 | -1.1% | 15 | -5.6% | 13 | 9.3% | 2 |
| 12 | MIA | 12.0% | 12 | 7.6% | 12 | 3-3 | -3.4% | 18 | -11.0% | 10 | 4.4% | 11 |
| 13 | STL | 1.7% | 13 | -7.5% | 22 | 3-3 | -8.7% | 24 | -12.8% | 7 | -2.4% | 22 |
| 14 | WAS | 0.7% | 20 | -0.4% | 13 | 3-3 | 16.2% | 5 | 5.3% | 21 | -10.2% | 32 |
| 15 | TB | 0.6% | 23 | -1.1% | 14 | 2-3 | -6.8% | 21 | -13.1% | 6 | -5.7% | 26 |
| 16 | DET | -1.3% | 15 | -2.4% | 17 | 2-3 | 15.2% | 7 | 6.4% | 22 | -10.1% | 31 |
| TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
LAST WEEK |
TOTAL DAVE |
RANK | W-L | OFFENSE DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
S.T. DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 17 | NYJ | -2.4% | 26 | -1.4% | 15 | 3-3 | -15.3% | 27 | -2.0% | 14 | 10.9% | 1 |
| 18 | DAL | -5.7% | 19 | -3.3% | 18 | 2-3 | 2.3% | 13 | 1.2% | 16 | -6.8% | 28 |
| 19 | ARI | -6.6% | 14 | -9.2% | 23 | 4-2 | -22.8% | 30 | -13.4% | 5 | 2.7% | 12 |
| 20 | PHI | -9.2% | 17 | -6.8% | 21 | 3-3 | -15.0% | 26 | -11.7% | 9 | -5.8% | 27 |
| 21 | PIT | -10.4% | 21 | -1.9% | 16 | 2-3 | 3.2% | 12 | 10.4% | 24 | -3.2% | 24 |
| 22 | CAR | -11.4% | 22 | -6.4% | 20 | 1-4 | -3.8% | 19 | 4.9% | 20 | -2.7% | 23 |
| 23 | CIN | -13.0% | 25 | -10.7% | 24 | 3-3 | -2.4% | 16 | 15.2% | 26 | 4.6% | 8 |
| 24 | NO | -14.1% | 24 | -6.3% | 19 | 1-4 | 6.7% | 11 | 22.1% | 32 | 1.4% | 15 |
| 25 | SD | -15.3% | 16 | -13.4% | 25 | 3-3 | -12.8% | 25 | 4.7% | 19 | 2.2% | 14 |
| 26 | OAK | -20.2% | 29 | -16.4% | 26 | 1-4 | -0.4% | 14 | 12.8% | 25 | -7.0% | 29 |
| 27 | BUF | -21.0% | 28 | -16.5% | 27 | 3-3 | -5.3% | 20 | 20.4% | 31 | 4.6% | 9 |
| 28 | CLE | -21.5% | 27 | -21.8% | 29 | 1-5 | -18.3% | 28 | 9.6% | 23 | 6.3% | 6 |
| 29 | IND | -22.2% | 18 | -20.0% | 28 | 2-3 | -2.6% | 17 | 18.7% | 29 | -0.9% | 21 |
| 30 | TEN | -40.2% | 32 | -32.7% | 30 | 2-4 | -28.1% | 32 | 18.6% | 28 | 6.5% | 4 |
| 31 | JAC | -41.1% | 31 | -33.4% | 32 | 1-4 | -22.5% | 29 | 18.8% | 30 | 0.2% | 17 |
| 32 | KC | -42.3% | 30 | -33.2% | 31 | 1-5 | -25.8% | 31 | 15.6% | 27 | -0.9% | 20 |
- NON-ADJUSTED TOTAL DVOA does not include the adjustments for opponent strength or the adjustments for weather and altitude in special teams, and only penalizes offenses for lost fumbles rather than all fumbles.
- ESTIMATED WINS uses a statistic known as "Forest Index" that emphasizes consistency as well as DVOA in the most important specific situations: red zone defense, first quarter offense, and performance in the second half when the score is close. It then projects a number of wins adjusted to a league-average schedule and a league-average rate of recovering fumbles. Teams that have had their bye week are projected as if they had played one game per week.
- PAST SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents played this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road.
- FUTURE SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents still left to play this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road.
- VARIANCE measures the statistical variance of the team's weekly DVOA performance. Teams are ranked from most consistent (#1, lowest variance) to least consistent (#32, highest variance).
| TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
W-L | NON-ADJ TOT VOA |
ESTIM. WINS |
RANK | PAST SCHED |
RANK | FUTURE SCHED |
RANK | VAR. | RANK | |
| 1 | NYG | 34.6% | 4-2 | 33.4% | 4.7 | 4 | -2.6% | 21 | 1.8% | 9 | 18.6% | 28 |
| 2 | GB | 34.1% | 3-3 | 25.1% | 4.5 | 6 | 11.8% | 3 | 0.7% | 11 | 14.9% | 26 |
| 3 | CHI | 33.6% | 4-1 | 41.0% | 5.1 | 2 | -6.7% | 25 | 6.8% | 8 | 20.3% | 29 |
| 4 | SF | 31.8% | 4-2 | 31.3% | 4.8 | 3 | 9.6% | 5 | 9.4% | 5 | 31.4% | 31 |
| 5 | DEN | 27.6% | 3-3 | 23.7% | 5.4 | 1 | 2.7% | 12 | -16.4% | 32 | 7.9% | 10 |
| 6 | NE | 25.1% | 3-3 | 31.6% | 4.4 | 7 | -0.1% | 16 | -1.3% | 16 | 9.5% | 16 |
| 7 | SEA | 23.5% | 4-2 | 15.2% | 4.6 | 5 | 6.2% | 8 | 9.3% | 6 | 4.3% | 4 |
| 8 | ATL | 18.7% | 6-0 | 28.8% | 4.1 | 9 | -10.1% | 29 | -2.7% | 18 | 13.2% | 21 |
| 9 | HOU | 18.2% | 5-1 | 22.0% | 4.3 | 8 | -1.7% | 19 | -6.0% | 26 | 14.4% | 25 |
| 10 | BAL | 15.9% | 5-1 | 21.8% | 3.6 | 12 | -11.1% | 30 | -1.0% | 14 | 14.1% | 23 |
| 11 | MIN | 13.9% | 4-2 | 21.7% | 3.9 | 11 | -12.1% | 32 | 17.1% | 2 | 3.7% | 3 |
| 12 | MIA | 12.0% | 3-3 | 13.2% | 4.1 | 10 | -3.7% | 23 | -4.2% | 22 | 8.7% | 12 |
| 13 | STL | 1.7% | 3-3 | -1.6% | 2.9 | 15 | 10.3% | 4 | 13.1% | 3 | 1.9% | 2 |
| 14 | WAS | 0.7% | 3-3 | 7.8% | 2.6 | 18 | 1.3% | 15 | 1.2% | 10 | 9.2% | 14 |
| 15 | TB | 0.6% | 2-3 | 6.5% | 2.7 | 16 | -4.8% | 24 | -0.3% | 13 | 8.7% | 13 |
| 16 | DET | -1.3% | 2-3 | -1.8% | 2.9 | 14 | -0.4% | 17 | 12.7% | 4 | 6.1% | 8 |
| TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
W-L | NON-ADJ TOT VOA |
ESTIM. WINS |
RANK | PAST SCHED |
RANK | FUTURE SCHED |
RANK | VAR. | RANK | |
| 17 | NYJ | -2.4% | 3-3 | 1.3% | 2.9 | 13 | 1.4% | 14 | -3.7% | 21 | 31.2% | 30 |
| 18 | DAL | -5.7% | 2-3 | -15.3% | 2.7 | 17 | 21.6% | 1 | -3.1% | 19 | 11.7% | 18 |
| 19 | ARI | -6.6% | 4-2 | -8.1% | 2.3 | 22 | 5.4% | 10 | 18.5% | 1 | 5.1% | 6 |
| 20 | PHI | -9.2% | 3-3 | -11.2% | 2.4 | 19 | 1.8% | 13 | 0.5% | 12 | 4.7% | 5 |
| 21 | PIT | -10.4% | 2-3 | -1.8% | 2.1 | 24 | -8.9% | 27 | -5.9% | 25 | 9.7% | 17 |
| 22 | CAR | -11.4% | 1-4 | -14.6% | 2.4 | 21 | 12.7% | 2 | -2.3% | 17 | 12.5% | 19 |
| 23 | CIN | -13.0% | 3-3 | -3.0% | 2.2 | 23 | -9.2% | 28 | -3.5% | 20 | 14.1% | 24 |
| 24 | NO | -14.1% | 1-4 | -7.2% | 1.8 | 27 | -6.8% | 26 | 7.8% | 7 | 1.9% | 1 |
| 25 | SD | -15.3% | 3-3 | -7.7% | 1.7 | 28 | -11.7% | 31 | -7.7% | 27 | 12.8% | 20 |
| 26 | OAK | -20.2% | 1-4 | -18.8% | 1.8 | 25 | 6.5% | 7 | -14.3% | 31 | 15.5% | 27 |
| 27 | BUF | -21.0% | 3-3 | -21.7% | 2.4 | 20 | -2.7% | 22 | -1.3% | 15 | 32.0% | 32 |
| 28 | CLE | -21.5% | 1-5 | -13.0% | 1.7 | 29 | -1.0% | 18 | -8.2% | 29 | 9.5% | 15 |
| 29 | IND | -22.2% | 2-3 | -26.2% | 1.8 | 26 | 7.6% | 6 | -12.2% | 30 | 8.3% | 11 |
| 30 | TEN | -40.2% | 2-4 | -41.2% | 0.5 | 32 | 5.0% | 11 | -5.2% | 23 | 6.1% | 7 |
| 31 | JAC | -41.1% | 1-4 | -43.1% | 0.7 | 31 | 6.1% | 9 | -5.3% | 24 | 7.8% | 9 |
| 32 | KC | -42.3% | 1-5 | -48.0% | 0.7 | 30 | -2.5% | 20 | -7.9% | 28 | 13.7% | 22 |
Comments
196 comments, Last at 26 Nov 2012, 7:24pm
#1 by RickD // Oct 16, 2012 - 3:57pm
Funny, I was planning to ask if you had a DVOA number for the Pats' 4th quarter defense for Sunday games. But you have all of their fourth quarter numbers! Nice anticipation.
That was a dreadful quarter. Don't quite understand it.
#3 by Aaron Schatz // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:00pm
Sorry, didn't make it clear. That first table is the FULL GAME ratings for those four games, not just fourth quarters.
#5 by RickD // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:04pm
Do you have quarter-by-quarter splits? It seemed to me that the Pats played considerably better for the first 50 minutes than they did for the last ten. (And this has become a well-established pattern by now).
#185 by Anonmouse (not verified) // Oct 18, 2012 - 7:47am
It would be nice to see the Pat's stay in the hurry up offense until they are up by 2 scores. Their defense can't get a stop when they need one and their offense can't move the ball enough without the no huddle.
The recipe has been the same too many times: Up by two scores, go into slow clock burning offense, fail and punt, defense allows score, continue with slow closck burning offense, fail and punt, defense allows score, lose game.
Ideally, better defense would be the best choice but sticking with the hurry up may do the trick as well. In both the Baltimore and Seattle losses, going to the hurry up after allowing the first score at the very worst would have left more time on the clock for the offense after the go ahead score by Seattle/Baltimore.
#190 by Insancipitory // Oct 18, 2012 - 1:52pm
23 - 10 is 2 scores, so I assume you mean 3+ but, I may be mistaken in your meaning.
However, I wonder, would your opinion change if the Seahawks didn't drop so many picks including a likely 100 yard pick 6 from Thomas? More plays doesn't help the team ahead, unless they stop being the team ahead. If the Patriots used the whole clock once they were up by 2 tds that might well have burned quite a lot of clock, then how does Wilson comeback?
Once they're up, they should want to reduce the number of plays left to swing momentum back the other way as much as possible. That doesn't mean they have to run all the time, they should still attack the defense in the manner that's most effective. And very late in the game, that might well mean running when it is not expected to work because killing a timeout or burning 40 seconds is as valuable as the mathmatically expected return on a play that might stop the clock.
#191 by Thomas_beardown // Oct 18, 2012 - 2:19pm
More plays reduces variance which helps the better team. Even if that team is already ahead. A couple fluke touchdowns and the lead can be gone, unless the team ahead has grown the lead even more.
#195 by MJK // Oct 20, 2012 - 11:21pm
I think the bigger issue is related to something Purds (I think?) brought up a couple of weeks back. When a team gets down versus the Pats, they change their defensive style to something that actually stops them half the time.
When there's a lot of game left, a team has to respect the deep pass even though the Pats aren't great at it, because there's much more cost to giving up a 30 - 100 yard pass than there is to giving up a 6 yard pass. They have to repsect the deeper game. Hence the NE TE's (and now Lloyd) can clear the underneath routes, letting Welker and Woodhead and whichever TE didn't clear down the seam catch those short yarders and keep the Pats offense moving.
But when you're down by a lot and time is short, you get desparate. Giving up a first down is just as bad as giving up a long play...and in some cases worse, because even if you give up a deep TD, at least you get the ball back and save some clock. So teams start moving their safeties up, turn up the blitz pressure, focus on stopping the run, and do their best to clog the underneath routes. Because the Pats aren't a great deep passing team, this severly impairs their offense. Even if they too advantage and threw deep all three plays of a down set, odds are probably only about 50% or less that they would convert. But they almost always try to run at least once, which fails, and leads to the pattern you describe.
To summarize: A defense that cares just as much about stopping a 6 yard gain as stopping a 30 yard gain will do better against the Pats style of offense. And opposing defense shift into that mode late when down.
#6 by Brendan Scolari // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:07pm
It looks to me like that chart is the DVOA for the whole game, not just the 4th quarter. Hopefully Aaron can chime in to confirm either way.
#2 by Independent George // Oct 16, 2012 - 3:59pm
The Giants are #1?!!
This is bad. Very bad. I don't like this at all. The Giants play their best when Coughlin is on the verge of being fired.
#8 by Bjorn Nittmo // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:10pm
My reaction exactly. We've seen this movie before, and seems like you can set your (regular season) calendar to October when the Giants pull off a performance like this in the Coughlin era. Now waiting for the other shoe to drop when they lay a complete egg in some game starting around week 9.
#29 by CeeBee (not verified) // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:52pm
...and win back-to-back games to end the season and start on a tear that ends up with a championship?
#124 by BJR // Oct 17, 2012 - 6:25am
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the Giants patrolling the top of the DVOA rankings for most of the 2008 regular season after their previous Super Bowl victory?
#126 by Jimmy // Oct 17, 2012 - 7:56am
Yes but for different reasons. In 2008 their offensive line started destroying the opposition whereas this year they are probably holding the team back.
#136 by GK (not verified) // Oct 17, 2012 - 9:45am
While nowhere near the 2008 unit that had an ESPN Magazine cover proclaiming them the NFL's collective MVPs (http://mms.businesswire.com/bwapps/mediaserver/ViewMedia?mgid=166962&vid=4), the offensive line this year is a (surprising) strength, not the disaster it was in 2011.
#140 by Independent George // Oct 17, 2012 - 10:02am
That was the year they rushed for 2,500 yards, with Jacobs, Ward, & Bradshaw each averaging over 5 YPC. As a whole, that team was better than either of the two Super Bowl teams, but Eli wasn't nearly this good yet.
#131 by Independent George // Oct 17, 2012 - 8:22am
And look what happened to them! Their star receiver shot himself in the leg and got sent to prison. Do you want Cruz to go to prison? I don't want Cruz to go to prison.
FO's power is strange and terrifying.
#4 by Dangerdonkey (not verified) // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:02pm
So basically the Seahawks and the Bears are the exact same team. The Seahawks are slightly better on offense, and the Bears are just a smidge ahead on Defense ans Special Teams. Interesting how some sports pundants have te Bears locking down their division and in the same breath put the Seahawks in 3rd in the NFC West. Either this is a problem of perception,or the NFC West is just that good. When did that happen?!?
#7 by merlinofchaos // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:09pm
Don't the Bears play in the same division as the Packers? Anyone who has the Bears locking down that division is insane. Yes they've got the lead and all, but...I saw that GB offense wake up and look like it can play. They aren't going down easy. There's no lock there at all. And for that matter, the Vikings are a surprise team this season too. There's a lot of football left before we have any real idea who's going to win that division.
#42 by Steve in WI // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:17pm
Yeah, this Bears fan is pretty nervous about the people who seem to think that they're going to run away with the division. If the Packers had lost Sunday night, especially if it was an ugly loss, maybe. But I think that game showed that whatever their flaws, they're still a darn good team.
I'm very glad that the Bears are 4-1 and the Packers are 3-3, but I won't be completely convinced that the Bears are going to finish ahead of them until it happens. I'm less concerned about Minnesota and Detroit, although I also am anxious to see how the Bears play them.
I'm still waiting for Cutler to put together a really great game, and one where the Bears win decisively over a pretty good team without the help of defensive scoring. IMHO, they're lucky to be 4-1 because the offense just hasn't looked that good yet.
#12 by Thomas_beardown // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:20pm
I don't think I would characterize a 9.1% difference in defensive DVOA as a smidge.
#43 by DisplacedPackerFan // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:19pm
Seattle is similar to Chicago, but lesser in all aspects. 0.6% stronger on offense (negligible), 9.1% weaker on defense (significant), and 1.5% weaker on ST (noticeable for ST which have a smaller range). I also don't know anyone who is handing the North to Chicago. Most of the division games are still on the schedule (there have been 2 NFC N vs NFC N games so far). Chicago is in the drivers seat, but I've heard people backing all 4 of the teams to win the division, though it's mostly GB of Chicago.
The West has played a few more divisional games though San Fran still hasn't any (as they have mostly been doing their tour of the North). Seattle's weakness is the two divisional losses, though I still generally hear the West is now San Fran vs Seattle, since a lot of folks don't trust Arizona to hold up due to no offense (DVOA agrees) and some of the St. Louis injuries are hurting them and causing worry. I haven't really heard any pundits putting Seattle 3rd in that division. By record they are 2nd.
All that being said the NFC North and NFC West are both beastly.
North DVOA (OFF; DEF; ST)
2. GB 34.1 (25.7; -8.1; 0.2)
3. CHI 33.6 (-7.7; -34.1; 7.1)
11. MIN 13.9 (-1.1; -5.6; 9.3)
16. DET -1.3 (15.2; 6.4; -10.1)
8. AVG 20.1 (8; -10.4; 1.65)
West
4. SF 31.8 (18.3; -18.3; -4.8)
7. SEA 23.5 (-7.1; -25.0; 5.6)
13. STL 1.7 (-8.7; -12.8; -2.4)
19. ARI -6.6 (-22.8; -13.4; 2.7)
11. AVG 12.6 (-5.1; -17.4; 0.3)
I know averaging the DVOA numbers is not kosher, but the worst team in the North being better than half the league is a little crazy, and then the West isn't that much weaker, with each of their teams ranking about 3 spots lower than the North "counterpart" (2v4; 3v7; 11v13; 16v19)
Lot of football left and I don't think things will stay this way, but for now, two divisions with two top 10 (7 actually) teams each, that play each other as well (most of the games yet to be played) and most of the divisional games for each yet to be played, should make for some more good football with challenging match-ups. It's just nice that the two best divisions in the NFL get to play each other so we should get a lot of information about them.
#47 by theslothook // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:32pm
This packer team reminds me a bit of their superbowl team. The injuries, the lack of a run game, the inconsistent and unreliable o line. The defense was better then, but the offense is better now. Overall though, this is still a very scary team and the only teams that I see beating them are ones who really can get any semblance off pass rush- I just don't think you can play coverage against rodgers and their scheme. Whatever Rodgers' incredible skills are(and he has so many), he still takes way too many sacks for my liking and thats really the last remaining flaw in his game as I see it.
#163 by PackersRS (not verified) // Oct 17, 2012 - 2:49pm
Offensively, it hinges on McCarthy's willingness to work more WCO principles (rb running patterns, using the field horizontally) instead of the four verticals he loves so much, and on the OL holding up, which has been a challenge this season (2nd in sacks allowed).
Don't get me wrong, Rodgers does hold the ball, but a big part of the blame is on Mike Martz, I mean McCarthy.
Also helps when teams run cover 1 and cover 0 bump coverage.
#170 by commissionerleaf // Oct 17, 2012 - 5:02pm
I've said for years the only way to play Green Bay was 2-man.
#178 by Ddude (not verified) // Oct 17, 2012 - 10:59pm
Interesting. North holds the crown I guess. Crazy how bad the offensive DVOA is collectively LOL. But without having looked at the average for other conferences, it seems the NFC West is the best defensive conference.
#9 by BroncFan07 // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:11pm
San Diego was-100% on offense in the 2nd half last night. I'm being serious when I ask this, but is that the lowest possible score? Granted, when your offense has 4 turnovers and -14 points scored, I'm not sure how it could be worse.
#50 by Brent // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:48pm
Don't think so. I'm guessing 0% = average assumes the defense gives up some good plays to the offense. Doing 100% worse is roughly (very roughly) giving up 100% more value to the offense than an average D would. Really, there isn't a theoretical limit to how bad a defense could be. I guess there is an actual limit though, since giving up a touchdown on every snap would be the worst possible performance, though that would be adjusted for situation, so even it's tough to figure out what worst possible would be.
#51 by Thomas_beardown // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:51pm
I believe there is a theoretical worst defense. You would have to give up a 99 yard TD on every play.
#55 by Brent // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:59pm
Even then, time in the game, score of the game, etc. has an effect. I think the actual limit would probably have events occurring instantaneously, which is impossible. But since I didn't write up the formula, I'm not really sure.
#60 by Yaguar // Oct 16, 2012 - 6:19pm
That only gets you the worst possible VOA. Opponent adjustments make DVOA unbounded in either direction.
In practice, the worst NFL team ends up around -40% DVOA and the best NFL team ends up around +40%, but it doesn't have to be that way. You could easily widen the spread between best team and worst team if you forced some teams to start scrubs, or high school players, or worse yet, Vernon Gholston.
#10 by Bjorn Nittmo // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:12pm
I'm curious whether DVOA was more impressed with the Giants' or Packers' win on Sunday, and where those 2 games rank for the season to date.
#11 by Thomas_beardown // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:16pm
The Bears currently have the 3rd best pass defense in DVOA history, behind the 2002 Bucs and the 1991 Eagles.
#14 by Jimmy // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:28pm
I can't see it lasting. They are playing lights out but I don't know if they can keep that up.
#19 by Jim W. (not verified) // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:42pm
I don't think so either because the frequency of their interceptions is extremely high. Their defensive INT rate is 6.5%. League average is 2.8%.
#23 by Thomas_beardown // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:45pm
Well that's pretty much how you play defense this well. The 91 Eagles had a 5.6% pick rate, and the 02 Bucs were 6%.
#20 by Thomas_beardown // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:43pm
The main thing that scares me is there is no depth at all in the secondary. If any starter gets hurt that opens up a huge weakness. Still you got to love the talent and depth on the defensive line. They're just overwhelming offensive lines and it's beautiful to watch.
#27 by Jimmy // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:49pm
I'd say there is more depth in the secondary (Steltz is passable as a SS, Hayden should be OK as a backup CB) than there is at linebacker. Imagine 54 or 55 going down and there is a huge drop off to whoever comes in, also if you lost one of them you might end up needing more DBs on passing downs.
But yeah, the line is crazy good and deep. Quite a few who could get better too - Paea, Melton, Wooton, Mclellin - a rather stocked cupboard of pass rushers.
#66 by Roch Bear // Oct 16, 2012 - 6:52pm
One measure of depth might be how much is lost from the starter. In that case, during preseason it seemed the Bear's depth at SS and left CB were good. FS and right CB, fair. Now, the loss of any DB seems to be a problem.
Is the September Jenning real?
#30 by putnamp // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:53pm
Their schedule gets a good deal harder from here on out, so that should provide some more informative data on e.g. their defense and it's interception rate.
#13 by Paul M (not verified) // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:22pm
Kudos, Kudos, Kudos. I posted here yesterday that I thought NYG, CHI and GB were the three best teams-- it is rare that I am so in synch with the cold hard facts. And the rest of the top 10 looks about what I would have said as well. One of these top 4 NFC teams will go to the SB and be the solid favorite to win it-- whether they draw Manning, Brady or someone else as opposition. They each have something relatively unique-- more than the more garden variety good teams such as ATL and HOUS. GB still has an explosive passing game and has improved defensively. NYG and Manning are simply a much better offensive team than they were last year and showed their defensive prowess Sunday. The Bears with Marshall and a defense defying age and a healthy Cutler and Forte are legit contenders. San Francisco's Achilles Heel is at QB-- but I wouldn't count out Harbaugh's ability to use Smith, Gore and Co. appropriately, or the prospect that they could still get at least one home game in January. Of course injuries and the vagaries of the schedule and week-to-week performance will shake these ratings up-- but for now this metric is far better than any of the gutless "Falcons Must be Number One" rankings the armchair experts are spewing on the various other sites. Nobody believes the Falcons are the best team-- nobody-- only FO has the gumption to prove it.
#15 by theslothook // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:31pm
IDK about solid favorite. NE has lost all its games by a few pts and has a few blowouts in their win column. The Broncos have the makings to be fearsome, they've just shot themselves in the foot with some unusually stupid plays going against them. No one should be a solid favorite over either team or houston for that matter and in fact, I would probably only favor the giants and sf over Ne at this point in the season. Ne's offense is still very powerful and more balanced than the packers.
#16 by nat // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:32pm
An interesting characteristic of the Broncos-Chargers game is how many plays the Broncos' defense faced in the second half: 39.
Normally, when a defense plays well, it will face fewer snaps. Not so in this extreme case, due to defensive scores.
So while the Broncos' defense was somewhat more dominant than the offense in the second half (11% better by VOA), they had many more plays (39-27, 44% more) , and thus had much more total impact on the comeback.
The uninitiated may gush over Peyton's late game genius, but those in the know will see this game as either a defense-led comeback or a Rivers meltdown, or both. Peyton deserves a strong assist for an excellent half of football. But look to Rivers and the Chargers vs the Broncos' defense for the real story in this one.
#17 by theslothook // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:33pm
It feels like you have a strange axe to grind with regards to Manning. I'm not just basing it off this comment but previous one's. Be that as it may, I would say it was maybe 60 40 in favor of the chargers meltdown, but it wasn't like the chargers defense really played lousy in the second half. Manning had to make tough throws into some tight windows(the plays to Tamme and Stokley in particular). I also thought the running game was non existent for the broncos and manning had to noticeably dodge many defenders on several of his pass plays(that funny hurdle play).
#65 by nat // Oct 16, 2012 - 6:48pm
I don't have an axe to grind, exactly. I don't like to see credit go to the wrong players. Brady's first Super Bowl MVP wasn't deserved, for example. Peyton's excellent receiving corps for most of his career are always ignored, as are his excellent pass protecting lines. Eli's first Super Bowl MVP should have gone to anyone on the D line, or to the group. The list can go on and on.
In this case, the Bronco's D induced the worst one half meltdown by a well-regarded QB I can remember, for decades. It annoys me to see Manning getting credit for it. He doesn't play defense.
Don't get me wrong. He had a great half. But this was the defense's day. Who but a complete jerk would deny them the credit?
#67 by theslothook // Oct 16, 2012 - 6:54pm
Fair enough,
though I quibble a bit with a few things. I certainly don't want to turn this into a brady v manning debate because it feels like its headed that way. I'll simply just say a few tid bits:
Peyton's career is pretty long and Will said replied this to me and its true, careers and situations aren't static. At one time, Peyton did indeed have an excellent receiving core and very good o line. However, that wasn't continuous, in either respects. MDS wrote this back in 2006 how the o line really wasn't that great and by 2008 it was bad. 2010 it was horrendous. This isn't just my opinion, Pff backs this up as well. I could link their articles but I'm lazy. His receivers were great yes, but again, post 2007, harrison was done and it became reggie wayne and clark carrying the load. Gonzo was injured off and on and it became a pierre garcon and collie show. Not coincidentally, manning's numbers dipped but thats really to be expected since most people blindly just assume qbs do everything and the rest of the team is useless - so I agree with you there.
Otherwise, we pretty much agree.
#84 by RickD // Oct 16, 2012 - 8:55pm
Who was a better candidate for the Super Bowl MVP than Brady in Super Bowl XXXVI?
I think part of the reason he won was that his poise was amazing for a player with so little experience.
#87 by dmstorm22 // Oct 16, 2012 - 9:06pm
Reportedly they had fan voting as part of it that year, and without the fan voting, Ty Law would have won the award.
#91 by theslothook // Oct 16, 2012 - 9:25pm
Tom Brady was the qb of an offense that scored a measly 13 pts total. Considering how much of a defensive game this was, I would've seconded it to Ty Law. I actually thought Brady played poorly- you don't have to turn the ball over to be a horrible qb- just ask david carr. Now of course, brady wasn't stupendously awful either, but the brady of 2001 would be a marginal starter in todays nfl with that kind of production.
#93 by Karl Cuba // Oct 16, 2012 - 9:29pm
Count me among those that thought Ty Law was robbed.
#107 by Michael19531 // Oct 17, 2012 - 12:13am
I'm a Pats fan who worships the ground Tom Brady walks on, but I thought Ty Law should've won it too.
FYI, my girlfriend at the time made a compelling argument for Adam Vinitieri.
#145 by Julio (not verified) // Oct 17, 2012 - 11:00am
Brady deserved it as much as anyone
for what was a total team win. The
defense was possessed, hard hitting
from everyone. Remember Antwan Harris
zeroing in on Proehl and hitting him
like a guided missle to cause a fumble?
Brady stayed cool, made no big mistakes
and most importantly with less than 2
min left, led the drive that led to
the winning score. He certainly deserved
something.
#22 by merlinofchaos // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:43pm
It took both teams playing extremely well to mount a 24 point comeback. I can't envision a scenario where an offense, alone, makes up a 24 point deficit. No matter how many points you score, if your defense isn't stepping up and either preventing the other team from scoring (or, as the Broncos did, scoring on defense) then offense alone won't do it.
Likewise, defensive scores are much more rare than offensive scores. While I have seen games where there are 3 TDs between defense and special teams, if the offense does not step up, a 24 point deficit is not going to get closed.
So yes, I want to agree that this was a team effort for the Broncos, but that is not going to reduce the value of PFM in the game. 12 of 13 passes for 3 TDs in the second half? That's some stellar quarter back play right there, aided by an offensive line that shut out the Bolt's pass rush and receivers that quit tripping over random blades of grass and dropping every 4th well thrown pass.
There is no single hero to the game. It took a lot of heroes to turn that game around, and PFM is one of them.
#49 by Yaguar // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:45pm
This was a serious contender for most efficient half Peyton has ever played.
12/13 for 167 yards, TDs on three of four drives. He ran a draw after an OPI call on the fourth drive when leading by 4.
Better, I think, was the first half of his first playoff game against the Broncos. Four passing TDs, over 300 yards, and two incompletions. They scored 4 TDs and a field goal on five drives. The field goal, which made the score 31-3, was the result of a 55-second drill at the end of the half - attempted because Manning ran out of time, not downs.
An honorable mention is the first half of the "no punts" game against the Chiefs in the playoffs. On three drives, the Colts scored three touchdowns. This game had very few drives because both offenses played slowly and deliberately. Priest Holmes and Edgerrin James combined for 50 attempts and 300 rushing yards.
#54 by theslothook // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:58pm
In terms of perfection of Manning- (not necessarily the one's I thought he played the best in-those take into factors like pass rush, field conditions, opposing d,etc), but just in terms of aesthetics- that Chiefs playoff game is pretty damn hard to top.
#58 by dmstorm22 // Oct 16, 2012 - 6:15pm
Considering the opponent, what he did in the 2009 AFC Title Game was about as good as anything I have seen.
#61 by theslothook // Oct 16, 2012 - 6:23pm
that was my second favorite game of his- and tied for second with Rodgers' atlanta game as the best qb performance I've ever seen.
The best? 2006 colts pats. In a game where his entire offense was trying to lose him the game(the blocking was horrid, the receivers ran the wrong routes, clark dropped a ton of passes, the backs could gain no yardage), he basically took that entire team on his back and forced them to win.
I remember collinsworth stating before the game how he thought NE was going to blowout the colts. Then when they previewed the AFC champ game, he said something like, "Manning played about as brilliantly as I've ever seen any qb play and they still nearly lost. Even if he plays slightly worse than that this game, the colts won't win."
It really was the best single qb performance I've ever seen.
#121 by theslothook // Oct 17, 2012 - 5:21am
I forgot to add this one, i don't know why i keep forgetting, just to show I'm not a complete homer- That warner performance over the packers in the 09 playoffs was surreal.
I actually think it was probably even better than Peyton or Rodgers' performances against the chiefs and falcons.
2 funny things about that game- 1- the packers had i think the 2nd best pass defense in football(blowing the cardinals out badly in week 17) and yet somehow got absolutely toasted 2- aaron rodgers was amazing that game as well, but it gets completely forgotten because of what warner did.
Just to add a few more since there are so many great ones:
Favre's performance against the raiders in his post father dying game.
Bradys had many memorable ones but for my money, the best brady game was the cowboys 2007 showdown where his offense passed all over the undefeated 13-3 cowboys.
Mike Vick performance in 2010 against the Redskins
Drew Brees- Again so many to choose, probably that 5 td game against the Pats on MNF 2009
Theres a lot of others, but those are the ones that come to mind instantly.
Im actually curious to hear which games Pats fans felt brady individually played the best in. For instance, that 45-7 crushing of the Jets = Brady was awesome but so was his team. That cowboys was more signature bradyesque dominance.
#138 by Yaguar // Oct 17, 2012 - 9:57am
All-time best is Marino over the 1985 Bears. The Bears defense had allowed 29 points over the last six games. Marino had 31 by halftime.
Marino didn't just beat the greatest defense of all time. He humiliated them on national TV.
#158 by Marko // Oct 17, 2012 - 1:22pm
While Marino undoubtedly played an incredible game that night, he did have some unbelievable luck on one of his TD passes. The pass bounced off the helmet of an onrushing defensive lineman (Dan Hampton), went high in the air and continued downfield about 20 or 30 yards because of the force with which the ball was thrown, and landed in the hands of WR Mark Clayton, who waltzed into the end zone untouched for a 42 yard TD reception. That Dolphins were already ahead at the time 31-17, but that play kind of symbolized that night. I think the presence of so many members of the 1972 Dolphins on the Dolphins' sideline that night had some impact on the game. I have rarely if ever seen a team so fired up for a game.
And then the Bears filmed The Super Bowl Shuffle the next morning in Chicago. Some of the Bears later said that loss helped them by getting them to refocus and ensuring that they didn't get complacent on their way to winning the Super Bowl.
#143 by dmstorm22 // Oct 17, 2012 - 10:21am
The 2009 Packers were the #2 pass defense in DVOA, but in their three games against good offenses, they were absolutely torched, first twice by Favre in Week 4 and Week 8 and then be Roethlisberger in Week 15.
#174 by makerowner (not verified) // Oct 17, 2012 - 7:24pm
For me it's the 2007 divisional game against Jacksonville. Brady was 26/28 or 263 yards and 3 touchdowns, and iirc both the incompletions were drops. One of the TDs was a beautiful fake statue of liberty play.
#24 by Thomas_beardown // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:46pm
I think more people are seeing this as a Charger's collapse than a Bronco's comeback.
#25 by Briguy // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:48pm
Manning did have I believe 160 DYAR in the 2nd half. That's hardly an "assist." Both the offense and defense played out of their minds that second half.
Outscoring an opponent 35-0 in one half requires a lot of things to go right. That's not going to happen if one side of the ball is dragging the other along for the ride.
#26 by Danish Denver-Fan // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:48pm
While I agree that the defense (or equivalently Rivers) was more important to the outcame than Manning, "A strong assist" is selling his 143 (!) second half DYAR short.
#18 by Danish Denver-Fan // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:37pm
Where do I find fumbles/fumbles lost data?
#28 by Jimmy // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:51pm
Have you tried nfl.com?
#31 by Danish Denver-Fan // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:04pm
'Course I have. That site is so bad it's rediculous. MAybe Fumble data is burried somewhere in the stats section, but its so damn hard to navigate.
#38 by Thomas_beardown // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:12pm
www.pro-football-reference.com is the best site for doing stats research.
#21 by Walshmobile // Oct 16, 2012 - 4:43pm
How much are the Cundiff 31 yard fg misses and blocked punts killing Washington ST rating?
#32 by prs130 (not verified) // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:04pm
The Eagles offense is really underperforming... they should fire their defensive coordinator
#34 by Sophandros // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:07pm
It's posts like this that are why we need a "like" button on this site.
-------------
Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.
#33 by Sophandros // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:06pm
If these rankings persist, I predict that the FOMBC will rear its ugly head once again, and the beauty of it will be that the fan base that first awakened this mighty beast would be the one to summon it from the deeps once again.
-------------
Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.
#44 by Just Another F… (not verified) // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:20pm
The Saints are clearly ranked too low because you aren't considering their suspensions. Sophandros's gut ranking is way better than this. Geaux Saints!
Is that what you had in mind?
As a Falcon fan who for once has been able to watch most of their games this season, I definitely feel lucky to be 6-0. I might quibble about being ranked behind Denver, given what we did to them, but I'm not looking forward to the Giants game or even the Eagles game.
#53 by merlinofchaos // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:57pm
The Falcons confused a still rusty Peyton Manning for a quarter and forced him into enough mistakes to put the game away in the first quarter...except for that part where they didn't put the game away, Manning got over the confusion, came back from a ridiculous deficit and the Broncos were a single 3rd down stop from having a chance to win. A 3rd down play, I'll add, that had an unflagged pick play from the offense that should've been flagged.
Sure, the Falcons won and deserve credit for winning. They're a damn good team, but it's hard to quibble over their ranking vis-a-vis the Broncos, especially if you compare how each team has played their common opponents.
For example, the Falcons let the Raiders hang in there and very nearly lost to them whereas the Broncos made the Raiders look like a very, very bad team. You might say it's a case of a good team relaxing and playing down to their competition. Heck it might even be good for them to come away with such a close victory. I think it opens up a case to say that the Falcons have played slightly worse than their record indicates, and the next couple of games should show us for sure.
#132 by Sophandros // Oct 17, 2012 - 8:58am
"As a Falcon fan who for once has been able to watch most of their games this season, I definitely feel lucky to be 6-0."
Well, you're no fun. :)
-------------
Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.
#123 by Danish Denver-Fan // Oct 17, 2012 - 5:50am
I have looked it up before and come up empty: What is this FO message boards curse?
#127 by Jeremy Billones // Oct 17, 2012 - 8:02am
Thought it used to be in the Glossary. (Catholic Match Girl is still there.)
When a team with a good record is ranked low in DVOA, a portion of the fan base will come on the the FO Message Boards and disparage FO stats for innacuracy. The team will then face a team with a worse record and better FO stats, and get crushed. That portion of the fan base will then disappear from the boards.
The term was coined after the Atlanta Falcons fanbase performed the feat. Not sure of the year.
#128 by Insancipitory // Oct 17, 2012 - 8:13am
so alluring, so disapproving, oh Catholic Match girl, where have you gone?
#180 by TomC // Oct 17, 2012 - 11:44pm
You forgot "creepy." Or maybe we just have different taste.
#182 by Insancipitory // Oct 18, 2012 - 12:09am
more silent resentment and repressed guilt for me then
#129 by Jimmy // Oct 17, 2012 - 8:16am
Under the 'About' tab, look for 'Glossary of Terms' and you will find this,
FO Message Board Curse: Term used to describe the tendency of NFL teams to lose games after their fans flood the FO message boards with angry complaints about a low appearance in the DVOA ratings. Examples in 2005 include the 3-0 Washington Redskins losing to Denver in Week 5, the 5-1 Broncos losing to the New York Giants in Week 7, and, most famously, the 6-2 Atlanta Falcons losing to the previously 1-7 Green Bay Packers in Week 10.
To that list I would add the guy who spent a good couple of weeks on the discussion forum attempting to shred FO's prediction that the Rams were a poor team (I can't remember exactly when it was but it was just before the Rams became possibly the worst team in football). Personally I avoid this particular curse like the plague.
#148 by DGL // Oct 17, 2012 - 11:21am
It was exacerbated by the fact that, that season, FO provided the foxsports.com football power rankings - leading to a vast influx of "casual" readers flooding to the site to bitch with little to no attempt to actually understand DVOA.
#149 by Jimmy // Oct 17, 2012 - 11:34am
I assume that in this instance 'casual readers', the casual refers to those who move their lips whilst reading.
#151 by Independent George // Oct 17, 2012 - 12:26pm
I think they would be more accurately called Bandwagoners.
#154 by Karl Cuba // Oct 17, 2012 - 12:46pm
That site's description of a stat nerd is all wrong, at least for the stat nerds lurking around here. For example, he posits:
"The RB gets 15 yards to his stat total, however so much went into that single play that no statistic can take this all into account. But don't try and tell a Stat Nerd that."
That's pretty much the opposite of the zen of FO.
#130 by Ryan D. // Oct 17, 2012 - 8:20am
Falcons fans got pissed when DVOA said their 6-2 team wasn't very good. They stormed the threads in large numbers, bitching about everything, and calling DVOA garbage. The Falcons then finished 2-6, to go 8-8 and miss the playoffs. DVOA rated them perfectly based on performance before their win-loss record (finally) indicated they were craptasticly overrated that season.
#173 by Karl Cuba // Oct 17, 2012 - 5:38pm
You could also look at the influx of niner fans after weeks two and three this year, they all turned up to shout at Aaron's preseason projection and since then the niners are 2-2. That could be chalked up to the more generic 'tempting fate'.
#166 by Kurt // Oct 17, 2012 - 3:24pm
Let's be honest. Giants fans broke the curse in 2007.
#35 by mrh // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:07pm
The Rams look like the team that DAVE forgot.
#36 by shoutingloudly // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:07pm
In the "Special Super Bowl Matchups" in the playoff odds report, shouldn't there be an entry for "Cutler Revenge Bowl" (Den/Chi)? I calculate the odds at 3.8%, a lot more likely than most of the other scenarios. (As a Broncos fan, I'd love to see this matchup, esp. if Dumervil and Miller stay healthy and Manning & Co. can build a lead...)
#40 by JasonK // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:16pm
Also, the "Super Bowl XXI Rematch" should be renamed "MANNINGPOCALYPSE"
#80 by Ben // Oct 16, 2012 - 8:18pm
Or perhaps:
MANNINGEDDON!
#72 by Richie // Oct 16, 2012 - 7:20pm
Cutler AND Marshall's revenge.
#75 by Insancipitory // Oct 16, 2012 - 7:44pm
Should the Bears lose I would like the game to be called The Battle of Little Big Clowns.
#37 by ZZ (not verified) // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:09pm
Pretty incredible that through 6 weeks, GB has already gone against the #1, #2, #3, and #4 ranked Defenses in DVOA
#45 by Nevic (not verified) // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:29pm
And this is probably why you had all of the "What is wrong with the Packers offense" narrative before the Houston game. Good defenses will cause the offense to play worse. (I guess that really didn't hold true against HOU though...)
#52 by Brent // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:56pm
You also had that narrative because GB's offense (prior to this week) really looked much worse than last year's, and no one expected that. Last year's GB offense didn't really care how good your defense was. This year's has looked off, based on (probably unrealistic) expectations.
#153 by commissionerleaf // Oct 17, 2012 - 12:46pm
I have no idea why anyone expected yet another historically great year from the GB offense. Last year was Aaron Rodgers' Brady 2007/Manning 2004/Brees 2011. It was a career year for their quarterback. He will still be very, very good (he has been, for chrissake he's completing close to 70% in this "down" year). But you shouldn't expect 40+ TD's in 15 games every year. No quarterback has ever thrown for 40 more than twice. No modern quarterback, even though passing has come to dominate, has thrown for more than 40 touchdowns more than once.
A reasonable regression-to-the-mean expectation for Rodgers would be something like 400 of 600 for 4500-4700 yards and 35ish TD/ 10 INT. And that's before you factor in the injuries to receivers.
#161 by MJK // Oct 17, 2012 - 2:45pm
I have an idea why...fantasy football. People remember all those points Green Pay players put up against their fantasy teams last year, jumped all over them this year, and are pissed they aren't getting the production they wanted.
It's the same phenomenon when people see a stock double in value, buy a bunch of it, and then get mad when it only grows 5%.
#165 by Independent George // Oct 17, 2012 - 3:17pm
We should expect a dropoff, but not nearly to the level we've seen.
Manning 2004: 58.9% DVOA
Manning 2005: 41.7% DVOA
Manning 2006: 51.3% DVOA
Brady 2007: 54.1% DVOA
Brady 2009: 40.4% DVOA
Brady 2010: 46.7% DVOA
Rodgers 2011: 46.6% DVOA
Rodgers 2012: 19.1% DVOA
Rodgers regressing to his mean should be a moderate decline to a DVOA around 30%, and merely being the best QB in the league.
#167 by dmstorm22 // Oct 17, 2012 - 3:24pm
Let's wait until the end of the season. His DVOA from negative two weeks ago to near 20% now. There is still room for him to rise quite a bit by the end of the year.
#168 by Independent George // Oct 17, 2012 - 3:47pm
Opponent adjustments will likely push his early-season games higher, too.
#48 by DisplacedPackerFan // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:37pm
And they have the 1, 5, 7, 13, and 15 on the schedule still. So that gets them 10 games against defenses in the top half the league (Min is 13 and they play them twice still). It is silly that having to play the #1, #5, #7, and #13 ranked defenses is a significantly easier schedule.
They do get some games against soft D's though as they do get to play #22 twice, #30, #28 in the future. Of course they didn't do so well against #32 and #29 who they already had on their schedule.
Huh, they face 1(x2),2,3,4,5,7,13(x2),15,22(x2),28,29,30,32.
So yeah they pretty much have feast or famine. 6 games vs the Top 5 def, and 4 vs the bottom 5.
#39 by kbukie // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:14pm
What are the odds of a DEN-CHI Super Bowl, which one might dub "Cutler's (and Marshall's) Revenge"?
#56 by merlinofchaos // Oct 16, 2012 - 6:00pm
Revenge. Or Comeuppance, depending on how that game actually goes.
I mean, what if evil Cutler shows up and throws 4 picks and butterfingers Marshall shows up and drops 4 very catchable balls? Because that's not an unlikely scenario for that dynamic duo. I loved 'em in Denver but Cutler can really have bad days.
#186 by Anonmouse (not verified) // Oct 18, 2012 - 8:15am
The perfect highlight would be this: Cutler make a terrible throw that hits Marshall in the hands on the sideline, but Marshall drops it.
#41 by kbukie // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:16pm
Interesting that the worst NFC team according to DAVE is the 4-2 Arizona Cardinals.
#46 by ammek // Oct 16, 2012 - 5:29pm
"This is the first time in DVOA history that four different two-loss (or three-loss) teams are in the top five after Week 6."
In addition to the prevalence of close games, does the schedule have something to do with this? For instance, the 3-3 Packers have played half of their games against teams that finished top of their division last year (Niners, Saints, Texans), as have the 3-3 Broncos (Patriots, Falcons, Texans); the 3-3 Patriots have played two such games (Broncos, Ravens). Between them, that's eight — they'll only have four more between now and the end of the season.
By contrast, they've only played four divisional opponents between them — a further 14 of those games remain on the schedule. This is partly because the networks like to have blockbuster games early in the year, partly because of the decision to make all the games on week 17 division games (which I hate). DVOA should better approximate their win-loss records once, say, the Broncos have faced the Chiefs and the Patriots have played the Jets.
#57 by Insancipitory // Oct 16, 2012 - 6:04pm
I know a lot of the teams ahead of the Seahawks defense lost, and a couple spectacularly, but the Hawks still must have got a wopper of an opponant adjustment from the Pats.
#82 by Perfundle // Oct 16, 2012 - 8:41pm
Well, their total DVOA didn't change much; nor did their defensive DVOA. Are you talking about their defensive SOS? Because that went from dead last to 7th in one week. I imagine a large whack of that was because of the Patriots, but the Dallas and Green Bay offenses also did their part.
#83 by Insancipitory // Oct 16, 2012 - 8:54pm
I thought their Def Dvoa was worse, and the improvement giving up 400 yards seemed really large to me. Maybe I remember incorrectly. The SOS should probably jump up a chunk after the 9ers on Thursday. That's when the 'easy' part of the schedule starts and we start preparing for a lot more of that home cooking come November.
I think I see what happened. I read Miami's def out of their row, I actually did it again. NM
#59 by James-London // Oct 16, 2012 - 6:17pm
Pleasantly surprised by the Dolphins this year, soul-crushing WTF? losses aside. I thought they'd be legitimately awful, but they're actually competent. I suspect the gap between them and STL, WAS & TB flatters them somewhat, but competence, especially on offense is welcome.
With JAX, IND, & TEN, plus BUF x2 and NYJ, I can see eight wins. Anyone want to convince me that two more forom NE x2 SEA & the 49ers are possible?
No?
Thought not.
Phil Simms is a Cretin.
#63 by Insancipitory // Oct 16, 2012 - 6:32pm
The Seahawks don't travel well, particularly east. The Dolphins host the Seahawks, and they've got a decent defense, if it's a 10am/1pm start, I'd say you could pencil it in as a win, but I probably wouldn't put any money on it.
I don't think the Pats dropping one is out of the question either, it's something they tend to do from time to time, so it depends on how you read the Pats losses, and how they'll bounce back from them. With Wake, a few colossal plays, or mounting Patriot injuries, it's not something I would count out.
#69 by Scanner (not verified) // Oct 16, 2012 - 7:15pm
Speaking of the Seahawks, broadly speaking that's fair since cross-country flights stink, but this year they DID win @ Carolina. That's exactly what you'd expect if this iteration of the Hawks were a little more durable mentally than the Holmgren-era crew.
...That said, it IS a 10 am game....
#74 by Insancipitory // Oct 16, 2012 - 7:42pm
True, I didn't forget that. But Carolina is something of an inconsistant group. And their greatest strength (running) isn't anywhere near as good as it was last year, and probably the greatest and most consistant strength of the Seahawks is run defense. That's an obvious oversimplification given Cam and the option stuff. But if everything else is locked up, does that give Browner more time to study how to defeat the option? With all of that, the home/away split for the @Carolina game and the visiting Pats is a swing of 35 point DVOA differential, resulting in somewhat comparable point differentials. That's nuts, I know. But I've seen this for years.
Miami is better than Carolina, and incidentally New England, where that damages the Seahawks most, defense.
I'm not dogging the Seahawks, I just think they're quite aways from the point where they can talk shit about opposing teams and their fans before flying cross country; as the the Patriots do. The Pats are monsters on the road against the spread, so I suppose they'll talk until someone shuts them up. The Seahawks are that team at home.
It's a winnable game for the Seahawks, that secondary is no joke for league MVP all everything quarterbacks. Tannahill makes rookie moves, he may pay dearly. But I'm realistic, I try to keep my expectations similarly so.
#73 by James-London // Oct 16, 2012 - 7:40pm
That's one more attempt than I expected! Seattle possibly, but that D scares me.
A split with NE? Brady's been known to pitch 4INT howlers against Miami, but while Jason Taylor may still haunt Brady's nightmares, he won't be on the field this year...
Phil Simms is a Cretin.
#77 by Insancipitory // Oct 16, 2012 - 7:58pm
You've got Cameron Wake and 7 weeks of teams emphasizing hitting Brady, Hernandez and Welker to keep them from feeling comfortable. One of them is nicked up, and two are on the wrong side of young. If Brady is sitting on his ass throwing interceptions, he could easily lose and for some reason he'll do that against Miami. Not saying it's gonna happen, just wouldn't be particularly surprised if it did.
But yeah, that D for my Hawks is a monster. They can win a lot of ways. It's a different kind from the overwhelming pressure I've come to associate with excellent defenses. There's not the wild fear, or panic on the other side of the ball. They'll hit of course, but it feels more like I'm watching them slowly strangle an offense till the light just goes out of their eyes.
#85 by RickD // Oct 16, 2012 - 8:59pm
The Dolphins could beat the Pats and the Seahawks.
Right now anybody with a QB could beat the Pats. Could is the operative word, though.
#164 by FrontRunningPhinsFan // Oct 17, 2012 - 2:55pm
The implication in this post almost brings tears of joy to my eyes.
A QB. F-I-N-A-L-L-Y.
Fire Jeff Ireland.
#194 by MJK // Oct 20, 2012 - 11:15pm
I don't know. Assuming you consider Fitzpatrick to be a QB, then the Pats are 2-1 versus teams with QB, and 1-2 versus teams without a QB.
Having a viable QB doesn't seem to be a discriminator as to what it takes to beat the Pats. Having a defense that can shut them down (and, playing them at home) seem to be the more important points.
#62 by Chiefs Fan (not verified) // Oct 16, 2012 - 6:31pm
The Chiefs are clearly ranked too high because the NFL should expand to Los Angeles and KC should drop a spot immediately, even before the franchise is awarded to anyone.
#64 by Dissociated // Oct 16, 2012 - 6:40pm
8 out of the bottom 9 teams are AFC teams. Some realignment in the future?
#68 by theslothook // Oct 16, 2012 - 7:01pm
Its really not too much of a surprise about the AFC south. They were all pretty successful for much of the 2000 decade and are at long last coming back to earth- or falling way down if you'd prefer that term.
The jags problems stem from frittered away draft picks on dlinemen(harvey and quentin groves) along with Alulu despite being completely devoid of any skill position talent. Gabbert soon followed and that pretty much sums them up.
Tennessee, to me, serves as a warning sign to the Eagles imo. They had a successful coach and organization, but they just never got to the top of the mountain. The dejected and demanding fan bases became complacent and demanded a change and thus, were replaced. Of course, replacing a nearly great organization and taking a chance on an unknown has its huge risks and the titans are suffering for it imo. Say what you want about fisher or reid, their teams play well and are usually competitive, but its hard to say where the titans are now.
Finally- the colts talent had been eroding all the way back in 2008. The qb, receivers, and d ends carried them while the rest of the roster was crumbling all around them. 2010 was the straw that broke the camel's neck(pun intended) and now they are in complete rebuild.
The texans, unlike the jags and titans, picked a fine time to be going through their successful upswing as there's no peyton manning in his prime blocking their way to the playoffs.
#189 by bravehoptoad // Oct 18, 2012 - 1:16pm
They had a successful coach and organization, but they just never got to the top of the mountain. The dejected and demanding fan bases became complacent and demanded a change and thus, were replaced.
I wonder how often this happens? It's the team I'm most familiar with, but the 49ers replacing Steve Mariucci with Dennis Erickson had to be one of the worst of those.
#94 by RickD // Oct 16, 2012 - 9:30pm
Not that you're being serious, but this is just a cyclical thing. Five years ago the Pats, Colts, and Steelers (and maybe the Ravens) were clearly the class of the NFL. They've all aged.
#155 by commissionerleaf // Oct 17, 2012 - 12:47pm
The Patriots aren't really an old team, and they are still the class of the NFL generally. They did make the Super Bowl last year.
#70 by bucko (not verified) // Oct 16, 2012 - 7:17pm
Green Bay is second? Really???
Ok
#86 by RickD // Oct 16, 2012 - 9:01pm
Beating the crap out of a previously undefeated and highly-rated Houston team will do that.
Let's not forget that DVOA isn't fooled by the bad refereeing of the game in Seattle.
#88 by dmstorm22 // Oct 16, 2012 - 9:07pm
DVOA is fooled. In DVOA terms, that counts as a TD for the Seahawks and a big play allowed by the Packers.
#96 by RickD // Oct 16, 2012 - 9:46pm
OK, let me rephrase that: DVOA doesn't look at W-L as much as some systems do. IIRC, it thought the Packers actually played better that week. (Which is what I meant by DVOA 'wasn't fooled'. I didn't mean that it ignored the play. Of course, I might simply be wrong. That happens, too.)
#187 by Anonmouse (not verified) // Oct 18, 2012 - 8:23am
You apparently did not agree with or did not read this:
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/shame-the-angry-mob-golden-tates-touchdown-was-legit/17706/
If link doesn't work, search "Shame on the Angry Mob: Golden Tate’s Touchdown Was Legit" by Scott Kacsmar.
A pretty good breakdown of the play and a supporting argument against the missed OPI call.
#188 by Karl Cuba // Oct 18, 2012 - 10:29am
Interesting, I've been saying the exact same thing. I would diverge from his opinion where he says that OPI is never called on a hail mary, it's a rare call but it does get called in truly blatant cases like the Tate shove.
#192 by Some guy (not verified) // Oct 18, 2012 - 4:59pm
Its a good writeup, but its missing one piece. He never actually establishes that Golden Tate "c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game." He considers control established within the first 4 frames of the video, but never identifies whether control is maintained (even if by one hand) through the rest of the video (he merely claims that it is). The ball staying in one place while held by another player is not representative of control (otherwise I could argue that I'm controlling a ball when I have a hand stuck between the ball and the player with two hands on the ball).
I would stipulate that there wasn't enough to overturn the call, but without showing c) (which he himself quoted as a requirement), he doesn't show "a call that was right".
#193 by Will Allen // Oct 19, 2012 - 1:36am
If Golden Tate establishes control by having one hand in contact with the ball, then the receivers coaches in the NFL need to be teaching a new technique, to promote receptions via simulteaneous possession rulings. Hell, let the DB catch the ball, as long as you can get a hand on it too!
#71 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Oct 16, 2012 - 7:19pm
bright side
Well, the Steeler D didn't fall to league worst as I expected it would
down side
Tomlin continued to allow lack of discipline to permeate through the team and organization. What a joke only suspending Ta'amu 2 weeks.
Shameful.
--------------------------------------
Velvet Sky fan
#125 by bubqr // Oct 17, 2012 - 7:40am
I even forgot you existed. I missed you, OmarTomlin.
#76 by Dales // Oct 16, 2012 - 7:52pm
New pattern being cemented by the Giants:
(1) Win the Super Bowl
(2) Get good
(3) ?
(4) Profit!
#134 by CeeBee (not verified) // Oct 17, 2012 - 9:39am
I fully expect the Giants to get smoked by the Redskins this week, have the media completely write them off, then play the "nobody believes in us" card, then make the playoffs, then...
Like clockwork, really.
#79 by MilkmanDanimal // Oct 16, 2012 - 8:09pm
Tampa jumps from 23 to 15 based on their pasting of #32 Kansas City. Had much confusion. Then noticed the Giants jumping to #1, and realized opponent adjustments are kicking in.
#81 by Will Allen // Oct 16, 2012 - 8:31pm
It still seems extremely weird to me that Peyton Effin' Manning was a free agent a few short months ago. Peyton. Effin'. Manning.
Sheesh.
#89 by dmstorm22 // Oct 16, 2012 - 9:09pm
You mean Mr. Noodle Arm, who, as per one scout "can't throw the football anymore"? Yeah, it is a little odd that he was a free agent.
Imagine what his numbers would be if he had a real arm?
#156 by Joseph // Oct 17, 2012 - 12:47pm
While we're on the subject, there was also a "Mr. Destroyed Shoulder" back a few years ago. He turned out to be pretty good, although it wasn't a shock that he was a FA at that time.
(Hint: he won a SB MVP 3 yrs. ago)
#169 by peterplaysbass // Oct 17, 2012 - 4:57pm
Yet "Mr. Destroyed Knee" who was also a FA that year (and had a 39 TD pro bowl year on his resume) was chosen over Mr. Shoulder.
I wish Brees had gone to the Phins.
I hate the Saints.
#90 by RickD // Oct 16, 2012 - 9:12pm
Well, he was the most highly sought-after free agent in NFL history.
And he was only a free agent because the Colts didn't want to make a balloon payment of $25 million* six months before they could see whether his arm would be useful this season. Given how bad the Colts would have been even with Manning, it's hard to argue with Irsay's decision.
*not bothering to look up the exact number, but I think it was in this neighborhood.
#92 by theslothook // Oct 16, 2012 - 9:27pm
Seconded,
After the saints game, I found myself actively rooting for the colts to lose so that they specifically land luck. I love peyton, he's far and away my favorite player, but I was thinking about the fandom of the colts for the next decade and as great as Peyton is, he can't guarantee me another 10 years of qb play. Beyond the money, this made sense from a football standpoint because it does no one good to have andrew luck sit for three years behind peyton anymore than for peyton to be grooming his eventual replacement.
#95 by Ben // Oct 16, 2012 - 9:42pm
With how much Luck has had to scramble this season due to protection break downs, I suspect Manning is happy not to be playing behind that line. And, as great as Manning is, this would still be a bad Colts team with him on it.
#98 by Will Allen // Oct 16, 2012 - 10:11pm
Oh, I have no issue with Irsay's decision, and as a fan of whatever provides the most entertaining football, I'm happy to see Manning in Denver, and Luck in Indy, but it is just plain weird to me that a qb who quite evidently is playing at a HOF level was out on the street.
#104 by Brent // Oct 16, 2012 - 10:51pm
What was weird to me were all the people saying he was washed up. It was possible, but betting against a player of that caliber just isn't smart.
#105 by theslothook // Oct 16, 2012 - 11:58pm
Seconded. You just don't expect such a franchise changing player like that ever being available via trade or free agency. I'm trying to think of the last few players over this decade that were big free agents/trade acquisitions while also being known quantities.
The few: Peppers, Jared Allen, Randy Moss(though maybe not known quantity since he was viewed as a malcontent and declining), To(see the moss comment). No one like Manning.